In the '50s, Honeywell invented the automatic camera strobe whereby the amount of light was regulated by the distance. A pretty simple thing. But back then, their way was the only practical way to do it. A cell measured the light, and a resistor (basically) drained the capacitor when the required amount of light had hit the subject. So simple, it seems obvious. But, of course, no one had thought of it except a couple of engineers within Honeywell, so, obviously, it wasn't obvious.

Yeah. No. This is not obvious, and is obviously patentable.

Quote:

Originally Posted by melgross

These days, people think that everyone is entitled to what others come up with, and they want it NOW. .

No, I don't believe that is what people think. I belive people think that, for example, trying to say a Galaxy Tab looks too much like a iPad is just an attempt to stifle legitimate competition.

I mean come on, Apple is copying Android as much as Android is copying Apple. If you don't see this you aren't being honest with yourself.

Microsoft is doing it and Apple should do so too. Apple won't be able to win every patent dispute but if they could get $10 for almost every Android handset that is money they could use to compete against Android with, win-win.

I'd say they are failing if you look at the total history of MS where they were and where they are now. Businesses are either improving, standing still or declining and by almost every metric MS doing really well at the last category.

Their growth has slowed down, so they are no longer considered a growth company. The slowdown will continue. But they are still doing well, by most metrics. They must divest themselves of things that are doing poorly and will never do well, such as search, and areas in which they shouldn't be, such as entertainment.

At some point, they will need to recognize that their business is business, and not consumer products. Some people poi t out that the XBox is on top now, but it's just 2% of their business, insignificant. They will never come close to regaining the $9 billion in losses it generated along with the rest of their entertainment division (now part of another division).

The same thing with Bing, though it's generating losses at a more rapid rate than entertainment ever did, with no chance of ever making a profit. They were very luck that Jerry Yang is such a poor businessman that he refused to sell Yahoo to Ms at such an inflated price. If that happened, Ms would be writing off billions in goodwill.

MS still has a lot of good years ahead. There's a reason for that. It's because software companies can rip off their customers, while hardware companies have a much harder time of it. I've always found it amusing that while Apple's 41% gross margin and their 24% net arouses calls of ripoff, but MS's 76% gross and 33% net doesn't.

Why are software companies allowed to overcharge so much without much complaint? They take less risk, and get much higher returns. If Ms didn't lose som much on other businesses, those margins would be even higher. It's those margins that allow them to take huge losses for years when other companies would have had to abandon the losing business years before.

This is really a use of monopoly profits to drive companies in other areas of business to their knees, though the courts don't recognize it as such.

It's this high margin that will allow them to hold on for a long while to come, and give them a chance to reorganize their business when they finally see they must.

While on the other hand, Android looked and operated like the BlackBerry OS before the iPhone came out. And now look at it.

Siri is a direct copy of google voice, for example. I don't doubt that Apple will try to implement widgets of some sort at some point.

I don't think Android is really that much like iOS except in ways that are pretty much standard to phones and existed in other phones before. I don't think they look the same. Android is widgets and customizable and so much more. There are a lot of reasons people are buying android phones. Certainly, some go Android because they can get a phone for free. Some buy for 3d videos/displays. Some buy to customize. Some buy because it has bigger screens. Some buy for physical keyboards. Some buy because they don't like being tied in to Apple.

Apple is just trying to trip up Android mfgs. on things like bounce at end of list, or ability to click and call a number. These things are not why people are buying Android. It is just an attempt to use small technicalities to limit competition. It is ridiculous.

Apple is just trying to trip up Android mfgs. on things like bounce at end of list, or ability to click and call a number. These things are not why people are buying Android. It is just an attempt to use small technicalities to limit competition. It is ridiculous.

You do realized the original iPaq predates iPod. Check your dates. I didn't say 2003 was the original date of the iPaq, just that I was using one in 2003. Also, it seems quite relevant to many of the comments on this thread, showing pictures of phones with keyboards and saying iPhone was some new paradigm. It certainly popularized the concept, as most felt a physical keyboard was necessary, but it wasn't the first. I do recall many people at the time complaining that there was no physical keyboard.

Ok, let's straighten this out.

The iPod came out in 2001.

The iPaq Personal Assistant, named after the legacy free iPaq computer from Compaq, came out around 2000.

You're comparing "method for detailing and outlining a movie" with an actual finished movie. If I wrote an awesome space opera. First of it's kind. And you write one after I do, obviously inspired from my work but nonetheless different you did not STEAL my work or even copy it.

Well, that depends. The owner of the copyrights has all rights to the original work and ALL work derived from it, except for satire, and a few other limited uses.

Your position on the ipaq and iPhone. Yes touchscreen phones existed pre-iphone but they were different. Hardly comparable except for some details.

The iPhone represented a paradigm shift. A reluctant one apparently since Apple apparently doesn't like that they shifted the entire industry.

They weren't touch phones. You may think its semantics, but it isn't. It took a couple of years for other phone manufacturers to come up with useful touch phones after Apple did. Befor the iPhone, restive screens were used. You should know that.

A problem that I'm finding is that even some web sites are using touch screen to mean resistive screens that require a stylus. That's not a touchscreen. A touchscreen requires no pressure at all.

Siri is a direct copy of google voice, for example. I don't doubt that Apple will try to implement widgets of some sort at some point.

I don't think Android is really that much like iOS except in ways that are pretty much standard to phones and existed in other phones before. I don't think they look the same. Android is widgets and customizable and so much more. There are a lot of reasons people are buying android phones. Certainly, some go Android because they can get a phone for free. Some buy for 3d videos/displays. Some buy to customize. Some buy because it has bigger screens. Some buy for physical keyboards. Some buy because they don't like being tied in to Apple.

Apple is just trying to trip up Android mfgs. on things like bounce at end of list, or ability to click and call a number. These things are not why people are buying Android. It is just an attempt to use small technicalities to limit competition. It is ridiculous.

You are so wrong about Siri it is painful. Siri is not voice recognition, it is AI.

The rest of your post is just jibberish, get a life.

just waiting to be included in one of Apple's target markets.Don't get me wrong, I like the flat panel iMac, actually own an iMac, and I like the Mac mini, but...........

Rickag, we understand that Siri isn't just voice recognition. Still doesn't mean that several prominent blogs haven't referred to it as voice recognition including AllThingsD, MacRumors, TechRadar and many others.

Rickag, we understand that Siri isn't just voice recognition. Still doesn't mean that several prominent blogs haven't referred to it as voice recognition including AllThingsD, MacRumors, TechRadar and many others.

THe Voice Recognition is really Nuance but since we're talking about Apple licensing Nuance for use in Siri we can say that Siri is Voice Recognition but we should end the description with just that single Siri aspect.

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

You're saying that, but to me, as someone who has designed a number of electronic devices, it does seem obvious, since it's easy for me to understand. The only reason why most inventions aren't obvious is because there are thousands of people working in an industry (at least), and it's just one, or a very few who come up with something new. I'm always reading people saying that some such invention is obvious. Sure, now that they know of it it is.

Quote:

No, I don't believe that is what people think. I belive people think that, for example, trying to say a Galaxy Tab looks too much like a iPad is just an attempt to stifle legitimate competition.

I mean come on, Apple is copying Android as much as Android is copying Apple. If you don't see this you aren't being honest with yourself.

Actually, it is what most people think. That why so much pirating goes on. If most people didn't think that way, they wouldn't steal other people's work. They would wait until they could buy it.

Companies are that way too. Google certainly is. They've taken from so many that it's hard to know where they started. They even stole from the Linux Foundation.

It's safe to say that if they hadn't, Android wouldn't be here today.

And there are design patents as well. Usually called "trade dress". This is just as legitimate as anything else. So when Samsung's lawyers couldn't tell which tablet was an iPad or a Tab from ten feet away when the judge held them both up, that's a pretty damning fact. One would expect that Samsung's own lawyers would be more familiar with both as that was the case they were being paid big bucks to refute. The average person on the street can be expected to be even less able to tell.

There are some things that can only be done in a few ways, and so they are done one of those ways. So, let's take the example of notifications, which is one of the things you're obviously thinking of.

There are expected UI concerns, and also restrictions as to how something can be done because of what else is being done.

So Google has them sliding down from the top. now Apple has them sliding down from the top. a copy, right? Well, maybe. Some writers have jumped on this.

But why did Apple do it that way? Mostly because they had to.

If you swipe left, you run into the search screen, so Apple couldn't do that. If you swipe to the right, you run into more pages of apps, so Apple couldn't do that. It's considered to be unnatural to swipe up to get a screen, by convention, so Apple wouldn't want to do that. So what is left? Well, they can swipe from the top. But, but, Android does that, so they must be copying. Well, I guess they both read the same quidelines.

But Apple's notifications are much more sophisticated than Android's are now, so Apple went well beyond what Google had done. And now ICS, being designed to integrate phones and tablets is very different than either iOS or Android 2.x.

Siri is a direct copy of google voice, for example. I don't doubt that Apple will try to implement widgets of some sort at some point.

I don't think Android is really that much like iOS except in ways that are pretty much standard to phones and existed in other phones before. I don't think they look the same. Android is widgets and customizable and so much more. There are a lot of reasons people are buying android phones. Certainly, some go Android because they can get a phone for free. Some buy for 3d videos/displays. Some buy to customize. Some buy because it has bigger screens. Some buy for physical keyboards. Some buy because they don't like being tied in to Apple.

Apple is just trying to trip up Android mfgs. on things like bounce at end of list, or ability to click and call a number. These things are not why people are buying Android. It is just an attempt to use small technicalities to limit competition. It is ridiculous.

This is total BS. Siri not is a copy of Google Voice. Google Voice is a very simple voice control system that needs specific commands to do a limited number of things. If you don't know the tech you're speaking about, don't talk about it at all.

Google is working on tech to compete with Siri, but it's not ready, and we don't know when it will be.

The same thing is true of MS. Their voice system is also primitive, but they're working on something better.

At some point there will be several competing systems. Apple has a big headstart. We'll see how those others do in competition a couple of years from now.

Rickag, we understand that Siri isn't just voice recognition. Still doesn't mean that several prominent blogs haven't referred to it as voice recognition including AllThingsD, MacRumors, TechRadar and many others.

Except that at least most of those sites do explain why it's much more than just voice recognition.

MS's tech, as well as Google's current tech is basicly just voice recognition, with the limited ability to act on a few wired in commands. Siri also parses what is being said after the voice recognition is finished.

Try asking a WP7 or Android phone:

"What's it like outside?", and see the response. It works on my 4S. There are a lot of questions and statements that Siri understands from parsing the sentence that the other systems haven't got a chance of understanding.

They weren't touch phones. You may think its semantics, but it isn't. It took a couple of years for other phone manufacturers to come up with useful touch phones after Apple did. Befor the iPhone, restive screens were used. You should know that.

A problem that I'm finding is that even some web sites are using touch screen to mean resistive screens that require a stylus. That's not a touchscreen. A touchscreen requires no pressure at all.

OK, so if you want to restrict it to just a certain kind of touch screen, there is the LG Prada phone that predates iPhone using a capacitive touch screen.

I agee that Apple mainstreamed and popularized the touchscreen phone, I even bought a 1g iPhone because it WAS better than anything else available.

But because they mainstreamed and popularized the touchscreen phoneoesn't give them the right to prevent others from making them.

You're saying that, but to me, as someone who has designed a number of electronic devices, it does seem obvious, since it's easy for me to understand. The only reason why most inventions aren't obvious is because there are thousands of people working in an industry (at least), and it's just one, or a very few who come up with something new. I'm always reading people saying that some such invention is obvious. Sure, now that they know of it it is.

Actually, it is what most people think. That why so much pirating goes on. If most people didn't think that way, they wouldn't steal other people's work. They would wait until they could buy it.

Companies are that way too. Google certainly is. They've taken from so many that it's hard to know where they started. They even stole from the Linux Foundation.

It's safe to say that if they hadn't, Android wouldn't be here today.

And there are design patents as well. Usually called "trade dress". This is just as legitimate as anything else. So when Samsung's lawyers couldn't tell which tablet was an iPad or a Tab from ten feet away when the judge held them both up, that's a pretty damning fact. One would expect that Samsung's own lawyers would be more familiar with both as that was the case they were being paid big bucks to refute. The average person on the street can be expected to be even less able to tell.

There are some things that can only be done in a few ways, and so they are done one of those ways. So, let's take the example of notifications, which is one of the things you're obviously thinking of.

There are expected UI concerns, and also restrictions as to how something can be done because of what else is being done.

So Google has them sliding down from the top. now Apple has them sliding down from the top. a copy, right? Well, maybe. Some writers have jumped on this.

But why did Apple do it that way? Mostly because they had to.

If you swipe left, you run into the search screen, so Apple couldn't do that. If you swipe to the right, you run into more pages of apps, so Apple couldn't do that. It's considered to be unnatural to swipe up to get a screen, by convention, so Apple wouldn't want to do that. So what is left? Well, they can swipe from the top. But, but, Android does that, so they must be copying. Well, I guess they both read the same quidelines.

But Apple's notifications are much more sophisticated than Android's are now, so Apple went well beyond what Google had done. And now ICS, being designed to integrate phones and tablets is very different than either iOS or Android 2.x.

Likely iOS 6 will introduce more features, and change some things.

So we go round and round.

So it is, in your mind, ok for Apple to do that "because they had too" and the fact that you think the notifications are better make it ok.

This is total BS. Siri not is a copy of Google Voice. Google Voice is a very simple voice control system that needs specific commands to do a limited number of things. If you don't know the tech you're speaking about, don't talk about it at all.

Google is working on tech to compete with Siri, but it's not ready, and we don't know when it will be.

The same thing is true of MS. Their voice system is also primitive, but they're working on something better.

At some point there will be several competing systems. Apple has a big headstart. We'll see how those others do in competition a couple of years from now.

But you see, Android had a voice input and control feature first, and Apple copied it. Did they make changes? Is it an improvement on existing tech? Yeah. So what are we arguing about? Are we saying shut down iOS becuase it copied an Android feature? Aguably much more important the the things apple claims adroid copied. Did google copyright voice control? How broad of a patent could have have?

OK, so if you want to restrict it to just a certain kind of touch screen, there is the LG Prada phone that predates iPhone using a capacitive touch screen.

I agee that Apple mainstreamed and popularized the touchscreen phone, I even bought a 1g iPhone because it WAS better than anything else available.

But because they mainstreamed and popularized the touchscreen phoneoesn't give them the right to prevent others from making them.

You might have noticed that they aren't preventing anyone from using a real touchscreen. Not a single company is being threatened by Apple, or sued by Apple to prevent them from using a touchscreen. Please get it right.

What Apple is doing is trying to prevent companies from using a few features that Apple either invented themselves, or owns because they bought the company that invented them. Perfectly legitimate. Apple uses these features to distinguish their products. There is no reason why they should allow others to use them.

Prada, or at least one person there threatened to sue Apple, but that never happened. After all the Prada was first mentioned near the end of 2006, the first press release was AFTER Apple announced the iPhone, and Apple announced the iPhone in January of 2007. There was no time for Apple to copy anything.

But you see, Android had a voice input and control feature first, and Apple copied it. Did they make changes? Is it an improvement on existing tech? Yeah. So what are we arguing about? Are we saying shut down iOS becuase it copied an Android feature? Aguably much more important the the things apple claims adroid copied. Did google copyright voice control? How broad of a patent could have have?

Oh please. Apple has had voice on their computers before Brin and Page went to junior high school.

This is total BS. Siri not is a copy of Google Voice. Google Voice is a very simple voice control system that needs specific commands to do a limited number of things. If you don't know the tech you're speaking about, don't talk about it at all.

Google is working on tech to compete with Siri, but it's not ready, and we don't know when it will be.

The same thing is true of MS. Their voice system is also primitive, but they're working on something better.

At some point there will be several competing systems. Apple has a big headstart. We'll see how those others do in competition a couple of years from now.

Finally, one of the benefits of Siri is that it returns actual results whenever possible and offers a web search for choices as a fail-through of last resort.

Even if Google and Microsoft are able to match Siri's capabilities -- will they return results at the expense of not showing you the ads displayed when using their respective search engines? I don't think they will.

"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -

"The perfect [birth]day -- A little playtime, a good poop, and a long nap." - Tomato Greeting Cards -

Finally, one of the benefits of Siri is that it returns actual results whenever possible and offers a web search for choices as a fail-through of last resort.

Even if Google and Microsoft are able to match Siri's capabilities -- will they return results at the expense of not showing you the ads displayed when using their respective search engines? I don't think they will.

Tell Me is just a joke. MS and Google's tech is just want Apple had before the Phone 4S with Siri.

I do love the 2nd video where it finally gets a command right after many frustrating attempts and he says thank you, which then causes it to write thank you on the screen. Despite all the issues it does show that the Voice Recognition in Vista or from his Perl Scripting is pretty good. It offers nothing of the other features Siri has to make a complete feature, but that single aspect seems like it was working well enough.

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Finally, one of the benefits of Siri is that it returns actual results whenever possible and offers a web search for choices as a fail-through of last resort.

Even if Google and Microsoft are able to match Siri's capabilities -- will they return results at the expense of not showing you the ads displayed when using their respective search engines? I don't think they will.

I had seen the first one. It was declared by some to not be fair to Tellme. Well, gee, if fair only means that it would work then what would be the point to the test?

I don't know - nuclear war is never a good idea so this should have been obvious from the get-go.

Yeah Google stole stuff, everyone knows it. But suing them isn't going to kill Android. Let them pay for it the sneaky way, the way MS does it - by blackmailing... err... licensing the valuable patents to the device makers.

I guess it's a matter of principle at Apple but in this one they should engage in realpolitik.

Well, LG is a very large panel provider for Apple, and Sharp appears to be supplying panels for the iPad3, using a new, and better version of the LCD. It wouldn't surprise me if Apple moved to someone else for phones as well.

Samsung, of course, is a S. Korean company, as is Hon Hai, their main manufacturer. Apple indirectly employs hundreds of thousands of Chinese workers. The Chinese government isn't about to allow any of their companies to do anything stupid. The Chinese love Apple products, and the government even had a ceremony on Jobs' passing. Ours didn't. Perhaps they value Apple more there than we do here.

Apple isn't suing everyone, just a few companies. MS has threatened more companies than Apple has, and over 55% of Android makers are paying them royalties as a result, from their numbers. now, they're going after the rest.

Hon Hai aka Foxconn is Taiwanese. And there are historical reasons for "friction" between Japan and Korea.

But you see, Android had a voice input and control feature first, and Apple copied it. Did they make changes? Is it an improvement on existing tech? Yeah. So what are we arguing about? Are we saying shut down iOS becuase it copied an Android feature? Aguably much more important the the things apple claims adroid copied. Did google copyright voice control? How broad of a patent could have have?

Apart from Apple introducing voice control in 2009 with the 3GS.

Then there was text to speech demonstrated at the introduction of the Macintosh in 1984.

Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.